Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #429
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Sunday, December 29 1996       Volume 01 : Number 429

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 01:00:27 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Internomic Trade 

Uri Bruck wrote:

> I'd just like to point out that my very long post about nomic name spaces,
> under the same subject line as this one, addresses both your points, and,
> IMO has the strengths of both your solutions. Perhaps you could read it
> and comment on it. It's a concept that may prove to be very useful.

I actually read it, and found it did not affect my scheme too much.
It seems like nomic X may already have defined in their rules 
"The Victory Eggplant hereby destroys all our rules" or "The Thring
Victory Eggplant hereby gives Malenkai a win" with about equal
probability (but something that must be considered, at least at an
intellectual level), unless you legislate at the Internomic level
that no member nomic may have a named entity that starts with the name
of  another member nomic.

This sort of legislation has a couple of disadvantages:
It does not account for the possibility of trade with a non-Internomic
nomic which may have a naming problem, and it doesn't account for the
possibility of a nomic named "Chartreuse" or "The" or something later
joining Internomic, thereby toasting some of our entities.  The fact
that it would toast Mohammed's trinkets may be a +, though ;).

So I/E would allow the target nomic to quarantine an object, whether 
"Victorious Eggplant" or "Thring Victorious Eggplant" would hose them
out.  Since I find the above legislation described unsatisfactory, I would
think namespacing and non-namespacing would both work with I/E; they
seem sort of independent concepts, IMO, unless I'm missing something.

Malenkai
who is wondering what the next ghost play will be

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 01:07:18 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 326 Verdict

CFJ 326 has been judged TRUE.  This means its publish or perish for all
newspapers which have not published anything this month.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 326
  Subject: Proposal 1560
Initiator: snowgod
    Judge: /dev/joe (selected Dec 26, 1996, 09:00h EST)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

The rule change described in P1560 in not ambiguous, and is therefore a
valid rule change.

snowgod's Reasoning:

R103, Paragraph 3 states:

     If an amendment to a rule does not unambiguously describe the
     amendment to take place, it is not a valid rule change. Rule
     changes not defined as valid by the rules are invalid.

and P1560 reads:

     This is a modest proposal.

     Amend R891 By adding the following paragraph between the first and
     the third:

     A newspaper must publish at least one article during each calender
     month, or it will cease to exist. When this happens, the newspaper
     is said to have gone belly-up.

The question that must be answered is if the text "Amend R891 By adding the
following paragraph between the first and the third:" is ambigous or not.
I believe that the intent of the proposal is clear, even if the exact
wording isn't.

I quote from R451:

     If there is a typographical error in any number in any Ackanomic
     document, and the intended number can be determined beyond
     reasonable doubt, then the mis-typed number shall be treated as if
     it were typed as intended, and be considered a misspelled word
     with respect to Rule 1022 (with the correct spelling being the
     intended number).

Clearly this paragraph applies to P1560 and the number three in the the
second sentence of the proposal should be treated as if it was "two".

/dev/joe's Reasoning:

The initiator's reasoning is valid.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 14:27:21 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Internomic Trade 

On Sat, 28 Dec 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> > I'd just like to point out that my very long post about nomic name spaces,
> > under the same subject line as this one, addresses both your points, and,
> > IMO has the strengths of both your solutions. Perhaps you could read it
> > andcomment on it. It's a concept that may prove to be very useful.
> 
> I actually read it, and found it did not affect my scheme too much.
> It seems like nomic X may already have defined in their rules 
> "The Victory Eggplant hereby destroys all our rules" or "The Thring
> Victory Eggplant hereby gives Malenkai a win" with about equal
> probability (but something that must be considered, at least at an
> intellectual level), unless you legislate at the Internomic level
> that no member nomic may have a named entity that starts with the name
> of  another member nomic.

No such legislation is necessary.
As I pointed out in my original post that if nomics currently have an
entity which starts with the name of another nomic, the fact that the
voting period on internomic proposals is longer than the voting period in
any of the member nomics, will give them sufficient time to safeguard
their rules/entities from such effects.
If after that any nomic still wishes to give power to entities from other
nomics, well, as you pointed out, we force anyone to have I/E, we can't
force anyone to safeguard their own nomic.

 > 
> This sort of legislation has a couple of disadvantages:
> It does not account for the possibility of trade with a non-Internomic
> nomic which may have a naming problem, and it doesn't account for the
> possibility of a nomic named "Chartreuse" or "The" or something later
> joining Internomic, thereby toasting some of our entities.  The fact
> that it would toast Mohammed's trinkets may be a +, though ;).

I already pointed out that such legislation is unnecessary. However you do
bring up an interesting point. Suppose a nomic named "Chartreuse" joins
internomic and they have an entity called "egg". It's internomic name
would be "Chartreus Egg".

 > 
> So I/E would allow the target nomic to quarantine an object, whether 
> "Victorious Eggplant" or "Thring Victorious Eggplant" would hose them
> out.  Since I find the above legislation described unsatisfactory, I would
> think namespacing and non-namespacing would both work with I/E; they
> seem sort of independent concepts, IMO, unless I'm missing something.

I never indicated name spaces as an laternative to I/E. 
But I really don't think we I/E for every single object. Transeferrence of
most objects can be covered by the concept of name space, with actual
import procedures to be initiated at our leisure, if at all. I/E should be
made optional.
I believe it would quite simple to draw up criteria that will determine
whether an object must go into Quarantine.
Specifically, the cases Malenkai mentioned above.

Niccolo Flychuck

> Malenkai
> who is wondering what the next ghost play will be
> 

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 14:30:34 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Internomic Trade  - errate :(

On Sat, 28 Dec 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:

> nomics, well, as you pointed out, we force anyone to have I/E, we can't
                                     ^^^^^^
                                   we _can't_ force

> force anyone to safeguard their own nomic.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 03:38:28 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: is volume 1 issue 2 

is is a product of cwm publishing

IS OWNER, MR CWM, GRANTS PUBLISHING RIGHTS TO SNOWGOD DURING SECRET
NEGOTIATIONS
By Henry A. Warnermount

Our exclusive sources have revealed to us that mr cwm, founder of is, has
granted snowgod rights to publish his newspaper.  "Yeah, yeah, is okay with
the head honcho." said mr cwm's secretary when we called to confirm the
story.

snowgod had previously purchased is for the amazing price of A$12, but a
later CFJ determined that the paper was immediatly transfered back to mr
cwm after the purchase.  snowgod was then gaoled for publishing the
intitial issue of is without permission from mr cwm.

Rumors flew during snowgod's persecution that mr cwm had indeed granted
permission to publish, but they were never substantiated and would not have
helped snowgod with his defense anyhow as no permission had been granted at
the time of publication.

Both parties hope that this new arrangement can be mutually benificial.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 10:17:32 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Duel - Challenge accepted!

john duncan wrote:

> Malenkai, snowgod accepts your challenge to a duel. I, Lestrade, have
> been chosen as his second. snowgod waives the right to select the
> contest, so convinced is he of the justness of his cause. Therefore,
> Malenkai, choose the contest, and let the duel begin!

I choose the dueling limerick of ridicule your opponent, and, in keeping
with the reason this duel was called, post the following limerick:

There's a dude whose proposals are cheese
Who plagues us with snowgod's disease
Sponging our bandwidth
'Till there's nary a byte left
Were it on paper we'd have no more trees

Malenkai

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 10:29:30 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Processing Chips

Processing chips from the latest round of proposals.

p1564 +3 Lestrade
p1571 +3 snowgod
p1575 +1 guy fawkes

Malenkai
Financier

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 14:14:31 -0800
From: [email-masked] (John Martin Lotz)
Subject: Acka: Processing Chips and internomic trading was Victorious Eggplant

I don't have a specific rule in mind, but could we possibly find
a way to use Processing chips to buy and sell items internomicl (Sic)

They are currently unused, the relate to activity in the nomic, I've
read posts wishing they could do something

Just an idea from 
Jammer

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 16:50:35 -0600
From: john duncan <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: I'm out of town

john duncan wrote:
> 
> This doesn't really qualify as a vacation but I will be out of town the
> rest of today, Friday, and most of tomorrow, Saturday.
> 
> Lestrade

Like McArthur, I have returned.

Lestrade

------------------------------

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #429
*******************************